alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study
Tier 1 Service Level Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared by
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
and
Iowa Department of Transportation
and
IMinois Department of Transportation

Pursuant to:

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC §4332 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508),

64 FR 28545, 23 CFR §771, 49 USC §303 (formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1996, Section 4(f)); National Historic
Preservation Act (16 USC §470); Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC §§7401 et seq. and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531-1544); the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1251-1387); and the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as anjended (42 USC §/601).

/Of: Gi -_
Datd of Approval FRA Administrator” /

{0/ 29/1 — Temata “I take be
Datd of Approval for lowa DOT
Date/of Approval for Mlinois DOT

‘The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Ms. Andrea Martin Ms, Tammy Nicholson Ms. Miriam Gutierrez
USDOT Federal Railroad Administration Director, Office of Rail Transportation Bureau Chief, High Speed &
1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., Mail Stop 20 Iowa Department of Transportation Passenger Rail
Washington, DC 20590 800 Lincoln Way Division of Public & Intermodal
Phone: (202) 493-6201 Ames, IA 50010 Transportation
Phone: (515) 239-1052 Illinois Department of Transportation

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600
Chicago, IL 60601-3229

Phone: (312) 793-4803

‘This Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates intercity passenger rail service improvements in the 500-mile
Chicago, IL to Omaha, NE Corridor in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, La Salle, Bureau, Henry, and Rock Island
counties in Illinois; Scott, Muscatine, Cedar, Johnson, lowa, Poweshiek, Jasper, Polk, Dallas, Madison, Guthrie, Adair, Cass,
and Pottawattamie counties in lowa; and Douglas County in Nebraska. A No-Build and a Build Alternative for passenger rail
improvements are evaluated. The No-Build Altemative ‘would include independently planned construction of passenger rail
service from Chicago to Moline, referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program. The Build Alternative would
consist of improvements to tracks currently owned and operated predominantly by the Iowa Interstate Railroad and the BNSF
Railway, and would create a competitive transportation alternative between Chicago and Omaha by reducing passenger rail
travel times, improving service reliability, increasing frequency of trips, providing an efficient transportation option, improving
passenger ride quality and comfort, and providing environmental benefits, including reduction of air pollutant emissions.

Comments on this Draft EIS should be received by December 26, 2012, and should be sent to Ms. Tammy Nicholson at the
above address.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1297

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Noel Rivera, also known as Cabo Rivera lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota

____________ Submitted: September 5, 2024 Filed: September 10, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Noel Rivera appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.Guidelines Amendment 821 and § 4C1.1. His counsel moved for leave to withdraw

and filed a brief challenging the denial of the reduction. Rivera filed a pro se supplemental brief. After carefully considering the record and the arguments properly before us, we conclude the district court did not err in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Koons , 850 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo a defendant’s eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction); see also U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7) (allowing offense level reduction for certain “Zero-Point” offenders when, among other requirements, a defendant did not receive, possess, or transport firearms in connection with the offense); Jackson v. Nixon , 747 F.3d 537, 544 (8th Cir. 2014) (declining to address legal or factual claims presented for first time on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2007297EN.01001101.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-179/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Environmental impact assessment)

(2007/C 297/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 6(3) and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of a series of industrial construction operations on special protection area IT 9120007 Murgia Alta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7450]



[[Page 19705]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2812]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

April 10, 2007
    A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to this petition must be filed by May 4, 2007. See Section 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an 
opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to 
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC 
Docket 94-102).
    In the Matter of Request for Limited Waiver of Washington RSA No. 8 
Limited Partnership.
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7450 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
(logo) KATZ

SAPPER

& MILLER

 

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge LenderServices LLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by ParkBridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’sReport”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31,2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactionscovered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company inits capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backedsecurities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report.Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Ourexamination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria duringthe specified period, and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to the selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicingactivities related to each asset backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaidentified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactionsidentified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Katz, Sapper& Miller LLP 

 

 

New York, NY

February15, 2018
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Michael Kaseta, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date:  April 30, 2018

 
|   | /s/ Michael Kaseta              |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Michael   Kaseta                |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer       |
|   | (Principal   Financial Officer) |

 

----
Before the Third Division,

December 26, 1940

No. 45076.

#### Protest 4856-K of A. Reasenberg *&*Son (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial the protest was submitted without the introduction of evidence in support of the claim made. As there was nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 35.5



|     |                        |                              
|---- | ---------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                        | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1086-120, 12th Floor 
|     | 550 South Tryon Street
|     | Charlotte, NC 28202   
|     | 1-800-326-1334        

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 10, 2015, by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES
CORPORATION II, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, AEGON USA REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-590M (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.7 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from November 10, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of
March 2016.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                          213
<SECURITIES>                  1,107
<RECEIVABLES>                 2,175
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0
<PP&E>                        3,441
<DEPRECIATION>                1,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               50,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                         66
<OTHER-SE>                    3,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 50,006
<SALES>                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,539
<CGS>                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 117
<INCOME-TAX>                     36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              81
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                     81
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                  1.09

</TABLE>
#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7394.

Invoices dated London, England, March 1944, etc.

Certified March 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 21, 1944, etc.

Entry No. 731674, etc.

*262(Decided October 2, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Colb, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 48 ) ll-E- 8

Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04

AM Sheet 48 of 264P. 2

#-•£- 2
CONTAC T REPOR T FOR

M PE S PROJEC T NO . N20 4

Dat e Compan

y 7/15/9 3 Ashlan dChemica l Descriptio n Contac t Fran k Cassi s (213 ) 724-244 0

Dr . Cassi s i s a marketin g consultan t wh o ha s represente dth e industry' s interest s inCaliforni a fo r som e time , especiall y

wit hregar dt o th e State' s regulations . H e like s th e CAR B RACT/BARC T guidanc e ("everything i s i nterm s o f positiv e controls") ; rule s fo r th e Sa nDiego , Bay Area , an

d Sa nJoaqui nDistrict s reflec t thi s guidance . Dr . Cassi s state dtha t th e industr y coul dmee t a 4 5 percen t monome r limi t fo r specialt y resins , whic h i s below th e 5 0 percen t figur e inth e guidance . Th e Sout hCoas t AQMD' s Rul e 1162 , develope di n1987 , i s somewha t differen t fro m th e CAR B guidance , an

di s currentl y

undergoin g revision . Wherea s th e rul e exempt s gelcoats , Dr . Cassi s sai dtha t a limi t o f 4 5 percen t styren e coul di nfac t b e me t fo r gelcoat s a t thi s time . Dr . Cassi s cite dGol dShiel dFiberglas s (20 0 employees ) a s a company tha t i s progressiv e inadoptin g emissio nreductio nmeasures . Sinc e Rul e 116 2 became effective , styren e exposure s a t th e facilit y hav e droppe d fro

m abou t 10 0 pp

m t o les s tha n5 0 ppm . PE S sen t a screenin g surve y t o thi s company an di s awaitin g th e respons e befor e contacting . Rul e 116 2 allow s complianc e throug hus e o f a close dmol dsyste m tha t wil l limi t weigh t los s t o les s tha n4 percen t ( a figur e tha t correlate s t o losse s fro

m LS E resins) . I npractice , processe s tha t generall y satisf y thi s provisio ninclud e compressio nmolding , RTM , ba g molding , an d pultrusio n( a "semi-closed " process) . Some facilitie s hav e substitute dalternative s t o styren e monomer , bu t thi s techniqu e ha s a "niche " use ; i t i s no t practica l fo r al l applications . I t ofte nproduce s unacceptabl e advers e effect s o nworkabilit y an d th e propertie s o f th e composite . Th e stati c (lab ) emission s tes t use dinCaliforni a measure s th e effectivenes s o f suppression . Resi nsupplier s mus t runth e tes t an d includ e certificatio n(yellow labe l o ndrum ) wit hth e resin . Fabricator s als o mus t ru

nth e tes t i nsome cases .

Californi a represent s abou t 1 0 percen t o f th e 5 0 percen t ar e "small " molders . Sout hCoas t ha s roughl y 25 0 permitte dsources , an dCaliforni a ha s abou t 500 . Dr . Cassi s conclude dtha t th e nationa l populatio ni s approximatel y 5,00 0 facilities . Dr . Cassi s fel t tha t industry . Fro

m 3 5 t o
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 13 December 2004         

amending Decision 2002/463/EC adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO programme)

(2004/867/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 66 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),

After consulting the Committee of the Regions,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2002/463/EC is amended as follows:

Article 2

This decision shall apply from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Done at Brussels, 13 December 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. R. BOT            

----

(1)  Opinion delivered on 17.11.2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  Opinion delivered on 27.10.2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)OJ L 161, 19.6.2002, p. 11.

(4)  General budget of the EU for the financial year 2004 (OJ L 53, 23.2.2004).

(5)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

----
EXHIBIT 99.1
 
 OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE





This Officer’s Certificate is furnished pursuant to Section 2.11 of that certain Servicing Supplement dated as of September 23, 2010 (the “Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as Seller, Servicer, Administrator and Custodian, Citibank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, BMW Auto Leasing LLC, as Depositor, and the BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2010-1 as Issuer (all capitalized terms used herein without definition have the respective meanings specified in the Servicing Agreement).


THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT:
  1.             I am a duly authorized officer of the Servicer;
  2.             I have reviewed the terms of the Servicing Agreement and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a detailed review of the transactions and conditions of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations there under during the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011; and
  3.             To my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement, during the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, except as set forth below.


Described below are the exceptions, if any, to paragraph 3 by listing, in detail, the nature of the condition or event, the period during which it has existed and the action which the Servicer has taken, is taking, or proposes to take with respect to each such condition or event:  NONE.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereunto set my hand this 28th day of March, 2012.


By:           BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
  
  By:             /s/ Joachim Hensel


Name:        Joachim Hensel


Title:          Chief Financial Officer
**Explanatory Comment**  Current Rule 211, if read literally, confers on a party the right to argue any motion before the trial court. However, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court have both held that any right to oral argument conferred by Rule 211 is only a qualified right subject to judicial discretion. See Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1986); City ofPhiladelphia v. Kenny, 369 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). To remedy any confusion between the text of the rule and actual practice supported by appellate precedent, Rule 211 has been amended to provide that a party has the right to request oral argument, and gives discretion to the trial court to require oral argument, whether requested or not, or to dispose of any motion without oral argument.

By the Civil Procedural Rules Committee

Peter J. Hoffman Chair